(4) Knox was then quietly told Sollecito had contradicted her alibi (see his newly translated statement below). Knox had no immediate reaction.

(5) Soon after, Knox had a wailing conniption, which really startled the four others present, when Knox saw an outgoing text to her boss she had just said wasnt there.

(6) Police did what they could to calm her down, and she insisted on writing out three statements (see below) in supposed elaboration in less than 12 hours.

(7) She was warned she should have a lawyer each time, the second warning by Dr Mignini, but each time she shrugged off this advice and pressed on.

(8) In the noon statement Knox said this, with no mention of having been coerced: “The questions that need answering, at least for how I’m thinking are… 2. Why did I think of Patrik?”

3. More About Knox’s Three Statements

Cassation ruled in April 2008 that the first two statements could not be used to indict Knox at the murder trial, but all three could be used to argue her framing of Patrick.

All three of Knox’s voluntary statements of 5-6 November say she was at her house with Patrick; the main thrust of the third statement (handwritten when she knew Patrick was being held nearby and may have proved her a liar at any minute) was to spread the accusations around a bit more, and drop Sollecito also in the soup

But the voluntary 1:45 and 5:45 statements also include these damning claims:

Statement 1:45: “I responded to the message [from Patrick] by telling him that we would see each other at once; I then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work.

Statement 5:45: “I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub called “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi where I work periodically. I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see you”. We met soon after at about 21.00 at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. “

See the possible opportunity for Sollecito’s team via the new appeal here? That’s one supposed “proof” that he wasn’t there (or at most came late, to explain his footprints and DNA).

And see the really big problem for Knox? She says she went out from Sollecito’s place on the night - and quite specifically says he did not come along.

4. Dr Mignini’s View On Cassation Ruling

Dr Mignini has several times observed that Cassation misunderstood that Knox herself had insisted on all three statements, ignoring advice he and investigators gave her.

But he did not think it was a make-or-break issue, and to him Cassation is almost invariable respectful and benign. And many Italian legal precedents say yes, in those circumstances those statements really should have been permitted exhibits at the main trial.

5. Now Sollecito Team Agrees With Mignini

1) Read the excellent new report by Andrea Vogt here (her Update of 19 June 2014) which in part quotes the Sollecito appeal saying this:

“The trials lacked an adequate review of the “individual” role of Sollecito, generating instead a sense of his guilt due to… a “confession” made by her, which never mentioned him at the scene of the crime. 1a) That declaration should be used as a favourable element showing Sollecito was not at the scene of the crime, not as a piece of evidence that confirms his guilt.

2) Also read the new report by Barbie Nadeau here [with the caution by Popper in Comments below] which in part says this.

Now, for the first time in this seven-year long, painfully epic case, Sollecito wants to be judged independently from Knox—if not on the case as a whole, at least on the issue of the so-called “false confession.”

6. Sollecito’s Statement Early 6 November 2007

Perugia Police Headquarters

Flying Squad General Affairs Area.

SUBJECT: Witness statement of person informed of the facts given by SOLLECITO Raffaele, already identified.

On November 5th 2007 at 22:40 in the offices of the Flying Squad of the Perugia Police Headquarters. Before the undersigned of the Criminal Investigation Dept. Deputy Commissioner MONICA NAPOLEONI, Chief Inspector Antonio FACCHINI Vice Superintendent of Police Daniele MOSCATELLI, Assistant Chief Ettore FUOCO is present the above-mentioned who, to supplement the declarations made [November] in these Offices, in regards to the facts being investigated, declares as follows: [*A.D.R. = Question Answer = QA]

QA I have known Amanda for about two weeks. From the night that I met her she started sleeping at my house. On November 1st, I woke up at around 11, I had breakfast with Amanda then she went out and I went back to bed. Then around 13:00-14:00 I met her at her house again. Meredith was there too. Amanda and I had lunch while Meredith did not have lunch with us.

QA Around 16:00 Meredith left in a hurry without saying where she was going. Amanda and I stayed home until about 17:30-18:00.

QA We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.

QA We stayed there from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.

QA At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.

QA I went home alone, sat at the computer and rolled myself a spliff. Surely I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.

QA I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00.

QA I don’t remember how she was dressed and if she was dressed the same way as when we said goodbye before dinner.

QA I don’t remember if we had sex that night.

QA The following morning around 10:00 we woke up, she told me she wanted to go home and take a shower and change clothes.

QA In fact at around 10:30 she went out and I went back to sleep. When she went out that morning to go to her house, Amanda also took an empty bag telling me she needed it for dirty clothes.

QA At around 11:30 she came back home and I remember she had changed clothes; she had her usual bag with her.

QA I don’t know the contents of her bag.

QA I remember we immediately went to the kitchen, we sat down and talked for a while, perhaps we had breakfast. In that circumstance Amanda told me that when she got to her house she found the entrance door wide open and some traces of blood in the small bathroom and she asked me if it sounded strange. I answered that it did and I also advised her to call her housemates. She said she had called Filomena but that Meredith was not answering.

QA At around 12:00 we left the house; passing through Corso Garibaldi we arrived in Piazza Grimana, then we went through the Sant’ Antonio parking lot and reached Amanda’s house. To walk there it took us about 10 minutes.

QA As soon as we got there she opened the door with her keys, I went in and I noticed that Filomena’s door was wide open with some glass on the floor and her room was in a complete mess. The door to Amanda’s room was open and I noticed that it was tidy. Then I went towards Meredith’s door and saw that it was locked. Before this I looked to see if it was true what Amanda had told me about the blood in the bathroom and I noticed drops of blood in the sink, while on the mat there was something strange - a mixture of blood and water, while the rest of the bathroom was clean.

QA I went to the kitchen and saw that everything was in order, then went around the rest of the house, I went to Laura’s room and noticed it was tidy. In that moment Amanda went inside the big bathroom, next to the kitchen and came out frightened and hugging me tight telling me that earlier, when she took the shower, she had seen feces inside the toilet, while now the toilet was clean. QA I just took a rapid glance at the bathroom trusting what Amanda had told me.

QA At that point I was asking myself what could have happened and I went out to find Meredith’s window to see if I could climb to it. I went outside with Amanda and she tried to climb to it, I immediately stopped her telling her to not do it because it was dangerous. I then told Amanda that the best solution was to break down the door, I tried to kick it and shoulder it open but I didn’t manage to open it. Then I called my sister on her cellphone and asked her what I should do since she is a Carabinieri lieutenant. My sister told me to call the Carabinieri (112, the Italian emergency number), which I did, but in the meantime the Postal Police showed up.

QA In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies. I heard the first statements that she made to the Postal Police who intervened at the place.

QA She always carried a big bag that she also had the night of November 1st.

The investigating officials acknowledge that the deposition ends at 3:30 (AM) of November 6th 2007.

7. Our Analysis Of What RS Signed

Chimera (who is currently working on identifying all of the lies in Amanda Knox’s book) offers these notes.

QA Around 16:00 Meredith left in a hurry without saying where she was going. Amanda and I stayed home until about 17:30-18:00.

QA We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.

Really? Some alibi.

QA We stayed there from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.

QA At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.

In both books, you and Amanda claimed to have spent the evening together.

QA I went home alone, sat at the computer and rolled myself a spliff. Surely I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.

You don’t remember what you ate, yet both you and Amanda remember vividly the pipe leaking, although you contradict each other on if it happened before.

QA I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00.

A false claim: In both books, Knox and Sollecito admitted they turned the phones off

(a) In Honor Bound, Sollecito says the phones were turned off so they could fool around undisturbed.
(b) In Waiting to be Heard, Knox says she turned her phone off so Patrick couldn’t text back if he changed his mind about her working.
(c) In the December 2007 questioning, Knox says she turned her phone off because it had a limited charge, and she didn’t want to drain it prior to the Gubbio trip.
(d) In the trial, defence lawyers spent much time disputing that the phones were ever turned off.

A false claim: It was shown that the computers were not active. Sollecito also claimed to be emailing many people. Odd, as this would be a solid alibi ....

(a) Not a single person came forward to say that they received anything from Raffaele.
(b) Raffaele doesn’t name a single person that he emailed.
(c) Not a single sent email was ever traced to his computer at that time period.

QA I don’t remember how she was dressed and if she was dressed the same way as when we said goodbye before dinner.

(Unless the police specifically asked him this), why would Raffy bring up Amanda’s clothes? Were they blood soaked?

QA I don’t remember if we had sex that night.

You were a virgin until Amanda, and you don’t remember having sex?

QA The following morning around 10:00 we woke up, she told me she wanted to go home and take a shower and change clothes.

QA In fact at around 10:30 she went out and I went back to sleep. When she went out that morning to go to her house, Amanda also took an empty bag telling me she needed it for dirty clothes.

QA At around 11:30 she came back home and I remember she had changed clothes; she had her usual bag with her.

You remember the bag in clear detail, but not if you had sex?

In Knox’s statement (one of them), she says she doesn’t remember if she read or made love, but in WTBH, insists they slept together.

QA I remember we immediately went to the kitchen, we sat down and talked for a while, perhaps we had breakfast. In that circumstance Amanda told me that when she got to her house she found the entrance door wide open and some traces of blood in the small bathroom and she asked me if it sounded strange. I answered that it did and I also advised her to call her housemates. She said she had called Filomena but that Meredith was not answering.

Amanda asks you if finding blood is strange?

You immediately went into the kitchen and talked, but don’t remember having breakfast?

Funny, why not mention the mop?

QA As soon as we got there she opened the door with her keys, I went in and I noticed that Filomena’s door was wide open with some glass on the floor and her room was in a complete mess. The door to Amanda’s room was open and I noticed that it was tidy. Then I went towards Meredith’s door and saw that it was locked. Before this I looked to see if it was true what Amanda had told me about the blood in the bathroom and I noticed drops of blood in the sink, while on the mat there was something strange - a mixture of blood and water, while the rest of the bathroom was clean.

QA I went to the kitchen and saw that everything was in order, then went around the rest of the house, I went to Laura’s room and noticed it was tidy. In that moment Amanda went inside the big bathroom, next to the kitchen and came out frightened and hugging me tight telling me that earlier, when she took the shower, she had seen feces inside the toilet, while now the toilet was clean.

QA I just took a rapid glance at the bathroom trusting what Amanda had told me.

Is this normal in Italy for people to not flush smelly toilets, or just these two?

You noticed Filomena’s door was open and was a complete mess, but you didn’t notice the broken window coming in?

And at what point did you ‘‘realize’’ or ‘‘conclude’’ nothing had been taken?

You noticed blood in the sink, but on the bathmat, was it an ‘‘orange’’ like described in WTBH? Or more like a footprint?

But in your recent Porta a Porta interview, did you not tell Bruno Vespa that Amanda didn’t even mention the blood?

QA At that point I was asking myself what could have happened and I went out to find Meredith’s window to see if I could climb to it. I went outside with Amanda and she tried to climb to it, I immediately stopped her telling her to not do it because it was dangerous. I then told Amanda that the best solution was to break down the door, I tried to kick it and shoulder it open but I didn’t manage to open it. Then I called my sister on her cellphone and asked her what I should do since she is a Carabinieri lieutenant. My sister told me to call the Carabinieri (112, the Italian emergency number), which I did, but in the meantime the Postal Police showed up.

This might have been plausible except for that ‘‘minor’’ detail, of Amanda telling the postal police Meredith locking her door was no big deal.

And that ‘‘minor’’ detail, that phone records show the call was made well after the Postal Police arrived.

QA In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies. I heard the first statements that she made to the Postal Police who intervened at the place.

QA She always carried a big bag that she also had the night of November 1st.

You are asked about inconsistencies in your alibi, and your immediate response is to say Amanda told you rubbish?

You told the police first that you were at a party with Amanda, then a story that you were together at your place. Now you say it is rubbish, and you were on your computer (even though that was proven false). At the Massei trial you stay silent, at the Hellmann appeal and your book tour you say you were together. Later, at the July 2014 press conference, and February 2015 Porta a Porta interview you say Amanda was with you in the evening, but not the night.

You didn’t see the inconsistencies? It is Amanda’s fault you keep changing your story?

In your book ‘‘Honor’’ Bound, you complain that if ‘’... we, [You or Amanda], deviated one iota from the version you broadly agreed on, it could mean a life sentence for both of you’‘. Gee, nice proofreading job, Gumbel.

You tell the police that Amanda always carried a big bag? Really ‘‘Honor Bound’’ aren’t we? That bag has never been found and Knox has never explained where it is. Knox might have carried a large knife in it, and bloody items the other way. No wonder she ‘‘broke up with you’‘.

So, this is the first whack you’ll take at Amanda? Let’s just hope she doesn’t retaliate by making up some story about you having ‘‘fish blood’’ on your hand.

Conclusions: I think this statement alone is enough to render most of his book total B.S, not that there isn’t a lot more to do so too.

Comments

I do not see much merit in this point of Dr Mignini [part 4 above, first para] or that RS & AK could now be separated. I would observe:

a. we discussed in the past also with Yummi and yes, possibly the 5:45 statement could have been allowed. On the other hand I do not find particularly odd the fact it was not and Cassazione cannot be criticised for a conservative approach. The Knox “memoriale” statement, which is perfectly usable as it is a private document, makes the discussion less important

b. if the 5:45 statement were allowed ... in that AK says she is not sure RS was there or not ... does not exclude his presence at all.

In conclusion I do not see this point as relevant, a separation of their position is now impossible (at least based on this point) and, if this is what Bongiorno is suggesting, I do not think the use of the 545 statement would have helped a bit the young man from Giovinazzo.

I would not evaluate as excellent the last article by BLN, as she omits to mention most of the incriminating evidence and she misses the key points, giving instead credit to a tv program of very low quality.

I know it is hard to comment on any Supreme Court proceedings as they are quite technical and relate to correct interpretation of law but an excellent reporter must try to do better

As I noted on PMF, a more important point relates to the use of RG’s statements (and all his previous statements) against the 2 defendants.

Art 111 of the Italian Constitution says that guilt of a defendant cannot be proved using statements of a person who refused, of his own choice, to submit to cross examination by the defendant or his/her lawyers.

During the first [Hellman] appeal, RG responded to AK’s lawyers regarding his famous letter, but not to RS’ lawyers ... so, as Nencini noted, those statements can be used, after having been carefully evaluated at least against Amanda.

It must be stressed Cassazione has already discussed the point in their first ruling.

Good comments. This on the appeal and Cassation reads even more firm and hard for RS to challenge. Just to be clear though, do you believe Andrea Vogt correctly translated this?

“The trials lacked an adequate review of the “individual” role of Sollecito, generating instead a sense of his guilt due to… a “confession” made by her, which never mentioned him at the scene of the crime. 1a) That declaration should be used as a favourable element showing Sollecito was not at the scene of the crime, not as a piece of evidence that confirms his guilt.

This refers at least to the 1:45 which, if correctly translated, the RS team wants in - even though the 5:45 and (pre-noon) memoriale dont help him, and the memoriale actually makes things worse.

For the sake of the record here this was the comment on PMF dot Org on key omissions in the Nadeau report that you mention:

the memorial written by Knox is very important, was conclusive evidence of a very serious crime but is hardly the only reason why she was convicted in first and second instance for murder and Cassazione never invalidated first instance so the Nencini appeal did not reinstate the conviction ... rather it confirmed it.

Sollecito is framed by his DNA on the clasp as well as by the multiple pieces of evidence we all know, his many lies, evidence of the presence of multiple killers, the knife at his home, the footprint in blood compatible with him, Curatolo etc. Omitting the discussion on this is not good reporting and the issue of separating the positions makes no much sense, even if it did it is rather late. Certainly Knox’s position incriminates Sollecito and viceversa.

It was stupid for him to admit she was with him, even if he did that at the end of the first appeal trial only in 2011. Their murder conviction will be confirmed.

Reporters who wish to be original have countless angles from which they could tell this story remaining faithful to their obligations to report facts.

BTW we’ve had some already, but we can always use more posts describing the fair, impervious nature of Italian law. It’s taken some pretty unfair knocks, a great pity as the rest of the world could learn something good.

If Bongiorno, as possible, refers to the 145 and the memoriale to argue those were not considered favourably as proof RS was not there (which would justify the position “let us drop the girl to save the boy”) a few things can be said:

a. 145 is usable against RS and therefore could also be used in his favour, but we know in the 145 AK is in part lying, accusing Lumumba, not a huge help considering she is not excluding explicitly RS there (he could have reacher her later). Let us say the credibility of AK vs others, in this statement, is low and against her this cannot be used. Certainly the 145 was not used against him and could not be used against her.

b. 545 cannot be used at all and, if used, would not help him.

c. Memoriale can be used against her as evidence she was in the flat and having slandered an innocent to divert suspicions, therefore he gets tainted by association but this is not the key evidence placing him there, there is much more, and the lies of the two, the fact they were together day and night, they were seen together by AC, they both left traces etc etc lock the position. Weighing in his favour a statement in which she even wonders if it was RS the one who committed the murder, against overwhelming evidence of presence of two individuals of different sex Idd by dna, clean up activity, curatolo, quintavalle, lies and much more, is not a mistake. Nencini anyway remarks that in her statements she said she was with Patrick not with RS so his Court has taken into account the information.

I would just add that if he wanted to sustain the position she went out and he stayed home he made a mistake in saying at the end of the first appeal that they were together ... he should have kept silent.

Points made in Cassazione are quite technical ref logical stream of the motivation, admissibility of certain evidence, having ignored evidence etc. but we must not forget to use common sense. A judge (in this case a court) is a judge, must evaluate facts and reach conclusions on the evidence.

Evidence presented is not automatically true and this evaluation is left to the judge of merit. Cassazione cannot enter into that provided the judge did not fall into important logical flaws or forgot key evidence.

1) Rita Ficarra and Anna Donnino could not be absolutely precise as to when the recap/summary began - when Knox went on the record with her list - though they both put it after 12:30 am.

Here Lorena Zugarini suggests it may have been as late as 1:00 am.

So we may have the Knox list-building, the Knox conniption, the Knox calming, the Knox refreshments, and the Knox statement at 1:45 all in 3/4 of an hour.

Various Knox supporters have claimed it went on almost all night till 6:00 and was part of a total of 44 hours, with no breaks, no food, no drink, no interpreter, lots of yelling and threats, and a request for a lawyer refused.

Some over-reaching hoax.

2) In nobody’s testimony or cross-examination is Knox being told (if she was told) Sollecito had just destroyed her alibi and said she went out on the night and had made him lie.

That might have indirectly triggered the conniption (if she was told) but nobody mentions any reaction by Knox (if she was told).

It was her reaction to being shown an SMS that brought the conniption alive.

This remains vague because defenses in cross examination on the “interrogation” were really cats on hot coals, and Judge Massei was making sure nothing of what Knox herself had said ended up on the record.

Remember at any time at trial that day Knox herself could have spoken up but did not.

Juries are not meant to read anything into that under Italian law (or common law) but we can certainly note that that was pretty odd.

I did note the errors in Nadeau’s latest article, though to be fair she and Andrea Vogt haven’t thoroughly digested the Knox Sollecito appeals yet or made any comments on likelihood of their being accepted.

I appreciate some nervousness about the outcome is normal and to be expected, but really, when you examine the Giordano sentencing report on Guede and compare it with the previous Supreme Court rulings on admissibility and probable cause, including the annulment ruling of March 26, 2013, they really set guidelines on the boundaries they expected from the prosecution and defense, and what the appeal court must consider and, not send them off on another wild goose chase.

Looking at Nencini’s reasoning, the weakness of the defense’s, and, keep in mind the prosecutor general still has to file a response, I fully expect the appeals to be rejected by the Supreme Court.

Good work, ZiaK. Thank you for this translation. Lorena Zugarini the police officer saw some mind-numbing fakery by Amanda Knox including tears as she accused the boss of murder.

Her lies were exposed, yet it is this liar’s account that Raffaele asks Cassation to take as proof of his innocence? I think I’m agreeing with Popper in the unreliability of anything Knox said or wrote.

Whether admitted into evidence or excluded, her communications even her body language are always a tissue of lies and not to be trusted in the least. Often the greatest lies on her part are lies of omission.

Raffaele’s book, “Honor Bound, My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox”, is his proud statement of defiance of the truth, in supposed loyalty to his girlfriend. In other words, it’s his honor to withhold the truth. He ennables a killer as his father ennabled him.

The iTunes Preview says of his book:

“Raffaele was the only solid alibi Amanda had for the night of the murder. He came under unrelenting pressure—from his own family and lawyers as much as the police and prosecution—to change his testimony and stop vouching for her. But he wouldn’t do it. He refused to testify against her to save his own skin, because he knew she would be lost forever.”

So Raf’s poor lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, had her hands tied from the get-go and had to defend him with nothing, because of his own desire to posture and pose as the rescuer (rescue whom? rescue an unrepentant killer, that’s no honor).

His honor. He wants to be the “honorable judge.” How can lying for a liar and a killer be an honor? Was it because she made him pinkie-swear and said she “loved” him?

The Sollecito camp is clearly in some disarray. We have his aunt appearing on an Italian tv show, claiming that it is definitely AK in the video and holding RS’s lawyers as responsible for persuading him, against the advice of his family, to back AK’s alibi, but RS writes a book that says the opposite, that it was he himself who ignored pressure from his lawyers and family in order to back up AK.

Who is in control here? Is it the lawyers, the family or RS? Not that it really matters.

Hi, Hopeful, a psychologist might have a field day analyzing Sollecito; always looking for a woman to rescue/rescue him. No wonder he got very angry when Kelsey Kay and Amanda Knox turned him down. He and Amanda seem stuck in the mode of always needing The Other to complete them, and really, what a mistake that would be!

Interesting thoughts by Cardiol, Ergon, Hopeful and James above on the shapeshifting nexus.

Triumphalism. Hubris. Condescension. Catch-me-if-you-can. These seem the hallmarks of not only the movement but especially of the Bonnie & Clyde mindsets RS and AK imbued in one another starting from when they were not arrested right after Meredith’s body was discovered.

On the night these court transcripts are describing (5-6 November) RS and AK both showed a lot of hubris: RS said he would come to the questura only after his dinner was done; Ak beefed on to Ficcara about how inconvenient the investigation was for her, though she had had merely one bout of recap statement-taking (no interrogation) and one visit to the house to check the knives.

Both had their bubbles pricked that night. RS’s bubble was pricked by the “stupid police” when they found a knife on him and he seems to have been in semi-jello mode for the rest of the evening. AKs bubble was pricked when she was caught in a lie, that she HAD sent a message that night, to Patrick, and she assumed semi-jello mode too.

AK dropped RS in it in her third statement of 5-6 Nov; that came after her already pushing the notion of not only Patrick but a lot of other suspects - including Guede the “south African” who plays basketball.

Cops smartly kept them separate and in isolation for several days (though lawyers saw them) so they had no idea what the other or anyone else was saying. RS’s written statement for his own 8 Nov Matteini hearing starts ʺI wish to not see Amanda ever again”.

And Knox’s lawyers (the same ones as now) would not let her say even one word at her own 8 Nov Matteini hearing; so as a result, in her 9 Nov report Matteini simply paraphrased all three of Knox’s 6-7 Nov statements, causing conniptions in her lawyers and Cassation ruling (rightly or wrongly) that the first 2 were verboten for murder-trial use though the third dropping RS in it was okay.

Follow the 2009 trial closely and you could see that AK was the one trying to pull closer to RS to get herself that much-needed alibi, and RS sulky and not having any of it. AK wrote love letters (some recently published) and asked publicly for a private meeting with RS (denied). No honor-bound was visible back then.

The Hellmann outcome really put the hubris of AK and RS and the movement on overdrive. $4 million!!! Nobody in the movement seemed to be saying “Hang on, folks, it aint over till the fat lady sings”.

Sollecito’s book could have been written in Italian in Italy but it wasnt, it was essentially written on the west coast (L.A. and Seattle) in English. (Francesco Sollecito was asked why and his answer, that they couldnt be sure of an Italian market and publisher, seemed very uncomfortable.)

Both shadow writers seem to have lost their cool and become imbued by the hubris of the movement and the false edifice of the case it had created, and poured that into the books indiscriminatingly, quite possibly to their present regret (okay, quite probably for Andrew Gumbel, who is being charged.)

Due-diligence checking seemingly wasnt done on either the RS or AK books by either the book agents or the lawyers, or they would not be causing the legal problems they are causing today. AK’s book was semi-expurgated in a hurry after Cassation 2013 for the American market, but it was still a no-no for the UK and Italian arms of the publishers, and before expurgation must have been pretty horrific (even more horrific).

Other than the shadow writers, who really comprehended fully what was in the books, and how much they did not tally with reality? Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer seemed to have a better handle on reality versus what is in the books than RS and AK themselves did. RS and Francesco have appointed another lawyer, not Bongiorno, to handle the book trial; why is that? Did she refuse? Is she ticked at being bypassed in the central message or final fact checking?

Or is she really, really ticked that, in his foolish book, RS finally caves, and says yes both of them did stay in together on the night, even after both had said on 5-6 Nov 2007 that that wasnt the case? And Bongiorno and RS not breaking with that “she was out, he wasn’t” stance throughout Massei 2009 and Hellmann 2011?

“Honor Bound” is based on a central lie, that RS really did look out for AK at trial in some way against strong family pressure, but the only genuine pressure on him was AK looking for that alibi help throughout, with RS cold-shouldering her. The intro to this post on Zugarini’s testimony is about RS seemingly again wanting the story to get back to “Knox went out without me”. Judge Nencini must be having a few anticipatory grins reading Honor Bound in light of that.

At the end of their road what are they facing? Three gigantic mistakes. Hazing Meredith to the point of her death. Not seeking a lesser charge based on drugs (I go with the crystal-meth or coke notion based on Knox’s odor the day after) or temporary mental incompetence. And writing those two pesky books.

Both they and their arms of the movement are in extreme-exasperation mode and there have been exasperated statements both by AK and Rs and by their proxies like the aunt Barbie Nadeau mentions.

Right now the Italian system is still in softly-softly-catchee-monkey mode. It is still not throwing the book at them. It has been pretty forbearing throughout, and even Judge Nencini did not go for life sentences, though typically that is what murderers in Italy get including two (Alessi and Parolisi) that we have followed.

But what it can do and has started to do is apply just a few of its considerable powers to rollback, with the books as Exhibit A. All the blood-money gained will be ordered by Italian or US courts to be handed over. Civilization is winning. And catch-me-if-you-can is giving way to mass whining.

You are right and I hope they will pay back the blood money and pay damages to the victims. They must go to jail if convicted for the murder of that beautiful girl, they have taken a life, a huge crime.

She has also destroyed the life of a family man, in a second. However the most revolting side of this murder is that they have later profited from it, with tens of other little sharks, maliciously misrepresenting reality and their own trial and trying to benefit from the language barrier, xenophobia, ignorance and the low quality of most media sources.

Their many contradictions and lies are easy to spot. Most of the fantasies of these morons still writing in their favour on internet, as disciples of an evil religion supported by propaganda and tribal values, come from the 2 books and were never represented as such in their trial, not even by their own lawyers, who therefore cannot possibly take charge of the defence for the troubles the books will generate.

On another point of yours, the judicial system in Italy can be slow but the paper trail remains attached and does not go away.

Sorry if I am oversimplifying here. However, does this proposed separation of cases by the Sollecito camp perhaps imply that Sollecito was only involved in the cleanup and staging of the break-in, but not the murder?

Obviously Sollecito was very involved in the whole situation. Otherwise, he would have turned on Amanda long, long ago. Clearly she has enough info on his involvement that he’s never turned against her in totality. Instead, he’s only done so in parts, like with the alibi, by simply muddying her alibi then saying he was so stoned he’s not sure.

Is it possible that Amanda and Rudy carried out the trap and murder, then Amanda brought in Sollecito to dump the phones, help clean up and stage the break-in?

No, it’s not possible that Sollecito only took part in clean-up and the staging of the break-in. Curatolo saw him and Knox in Piazza Grimana shortly before the murder. The knife was taken from his apartment. The Supreme Court stated that it would assume it was under his control unless it had evidence to the contrary.

I agree with The Machine. Evidence is evidence. Black ink on white paper and was discussed by tjmk and pmf for years.

Many people in the FOA camp seem to believe that, since the trial in not carried out in the US or in whatever other country they mention, they can pick evidence depending on their tastes. They also seem to suffer the fact that in this trial sentences are issued by a Court in writing and must be logical in their arguments and conclusions, which makes de facto impossible an acquittal ... there is no logical way to acquit and explain the same acquittal in writing, we saw that with our own eyes by reading Supreme Court and Nencini ...

Probably these people would also like the trial to be held in front of a jury controlled and chosen by them so they, as theoretical jurors, could do exactly that, pick evidence (in this case they have to exclude it all) and acquit without explanation, no written report obviously. In this case however there is no evidence in favour of the 2 defendants but overwhelming evidence against them, both of them.

Evidence shows RS was there and killed the girl with the other two. Undeniable evidence. We cannot pick evidence as we like.

“No, it’s not possible that Sollecito only took part in clean-up and the staging of the break-in. Curatolo saw him and Knox in Piazza Grimana shortly before the murder. The knife was taken from his apartment. The Supreme Court stated that it would assume it was under his control unless it had evidence to the contrary. “

Thanks also to Popper for:

“Evidence shows RS was there and killed the girl with the other two. Undeniable evidence.”

The Machine above shows how there is no way out for RS on the hard evidence. There is just too much.

Popper shows how there is no way out for RS on the law, and how the cherrypicking of the evidence and Italian law by the RS and AK movements is childish and absurd.

I would add to the Machine’s list the strongest evidence of all, which was presented twice at trial in 2009 behind closed doors. The recreations of the 15-minute attack, based on all the marks on Meredith and all the marks in the room.

And most especially the proof that two knives were used, from opposite sides, while Guede was at Meredith’s back - with one of the knives being from Sollecito’s house.

No way only two people did that while RS was off elsewhere on his PC - which internet records and his turned-off and so unpinged cellphone and eyewitnesses didnt back up.

So what is going on in Sollecito’s head?

Maybe at the cost of conceding he was there, he wants to get across that he and Guede did not strike the horrific death blow that ultimately led to Meredith’s death. That that was the crazed Knox, and they had not bought into that.

Both Guede and RS have been sulky toward AK for years and this might be the cause. So while it might be nervous-making for some that RS looks to have a longshot of getting off, he really doesnt, at all.

And this circular firing squad among the perps could lead to some unarguable truths about motive on the night, and the cruel nature of the attack. Maybe it could even cause the RS and AK movements to shut up.

It is my opinion that Sollecito is only now realising how he has been so carefully manipulated during his ‘almost blink and you will miss it’ sexual relationship with Amanda Knox and then later during incarceration and release from prison.

Perhaps he bought into it all again, because he was released Re. Hellman?

I don’t know whether I would agree with you as regards the recreations of the 15 minute attack being the strongest evidence per se.

If you are referring to the video depicting the gruesome threesome as avatars attacking Meredith, I would agree that it was indeed a very powerful tool used quite rightly by the prosecution in the respect of what effect it had on all the horrified viewers present.

Because it was so powerful - and one cannot underestimate imagery, the defences and the Knox and Sollecito fans predictively tried to rubbish it and even brought a charge (if I recall correctly)of it being an illegal waste of money, which of course is nonsense.

May I ask for clarification on the following: Mignini and several judges - Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani, Judge Belardi and Judge Borsini and Judge Nencini and Judge Cicerchia - believe that Sollecito was involved in Meredith’s murder and slashed Meredith’s throat.”

I understood that there were two primary wounds to Meredith’s neck, one on her right side, compatible with the smaller knives that RS constantly carried, and one on the front, extending somewhat to her left side, compatible with the larger “kitchen” knife from RS’s flat. The wound on the right side seems more of a “puncture,” while the wound in the front seems more of a “slash,” especially since its width was about twice that of the larger knife. Doesn’t the prosecution hypothesize that the smaller wound was inflicted by RS and the larger wound by AK? Thanks in advance for your clarification.

Also, if I may ask, without intending any offense at inquiring so directly on a sensitive subject, is it possible that the “slash” was also a part of the staging, perhaps the first act of staging, in the sense that one thrusting movement of the larger knife would have been sufficient to silence vocalization, while subsequent movement of the larger knife may have been intended to obscure the correlation between the shape of the knife and the characteristics of the wound as found in the autopsy. Certainly the defense has tried to emphasize the lack of a one-to-one correlation. In this context I also recall Bongiorno’s bizzare closing statements about “halves”; ‘one-half’ being enough. I’m sure Bongiorno didn’t intend this meaning, but in a sense she may have left an opening for staging in that one-half was enough, and all else was staging intended to distort the evidence.

Thanks also to ZiaK and Popper for their excellent work, and to Peter for continually tying everything together.

Thanks all for the responses—you are right. I was forgetting some key things; long week. I was just surprised that RS would try to separate cases. I do think as many of you (and as Peter) put it, he’s trying to separate himself in the sense that he’s trying to show he was not the hard aggressor/ringleader. Maybe he’s just vying for a little bit of a lighter sentence.

Loyalty is a term missing from the dictionary of Indian politicians. You need to thank…

True Justice is a self-funded, professional-run website. Main posters own the copyright.
A ton of money and effort has been sunk into document acquisition, translations, and getting it right.
Major further use should be based on asking our okay and on requesting we peer-review.
Contact: Email Us Or write us: Editor, True Justice, PO Box 578, Times Square, New York NY 10108.